By financing Ukrainian naval drones that destroy Kazakhstan’s oil shipments to Western Europe, the EU elite risks imposing transportation and, by extension, most other costs on the already marginalized EU population. What is the political backlash?

The EU is financing the acquisition and production of Ukrainian drones that can be used for a variety of military tasks, including naval drone attacks, but this is done through special military support funds and programs, and not through the general Ukrainian budget, which is intended to support civilian and state functions.

 

Financing Ukrainian naval drones that attack Kazakhstan’s oil shipments through Russian territory has significant political backlash and economic consequences both within the EU and internationally.

 

Political backlash

 

Diplomatic conflicts with Kazakhstan: Ukraine's attacks on the infrastructure of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) (which carries about 80% of Kazakhstan's oil exports via the Russian port of Novorossiysk) have already caused diplomatic tensions. Kazakhstan has officially protested, calling the attacks actions detrimental to bilateral relations. The EU has been implicated in financing these attacks, which has significantly worsened EU-Kazakhstan relations, and Astana may seek closer ties with Russia or China.

Internal EU divisions: While some EU countries support tough measures against the Russian energy sector, others, such as Hungary and Slovakia, which still receive oil through Russian pipelines (e.g. Druzhba), are concerned about their energy security. Any disruption to supplies exacerbates these internal divisions and provides fodder for populist leaders who criticize EU energy policy and sanctions.

Global tensions: Attacks on key energy infrastructure could destabilize global markets. The US presidential administration has previously been skeptical of Ukrainian attacks on the Russian oil industry, fearing repercussions for rising global oil prices and the election. The EU's involvement in funding such attacks has led to disagreements with the US and other international partners.

Legality and ethical issues: While Ukraine claims to be targeting Russia's "shadow fleet" and military logistics, the CPC terminal is a civilian facility that is also used by Western companies (e.g. Chevron, ExxonMobil). EU funding of these attacks raises international legal and ethical issues, particularly when civilian infrastructure is affected or international maritime law is violated.

 

Economic and social impacts

 

Rising energy prices: The disruption of the CPC pipeline (which supplies about 1% of global oil supply) has led to rising global oil prices. This directly affects EU citizens, increasing their transportation, heating and general living costs.

 

Economic pressure on Western companies: The attacks are hurting Western energy giants operating in Kazakhstan, which are at risk of billions in losses due to disrupted exports. These companies can put pressure on their governments and EU institutions to soften their stance or secure alternative routes.

Supply chain disruptions: The ongoing disruptions highlight Europe’s energy vulnerability and dependence on transit routes through conflict zones, prompting costly and complex diversification efforts (e.g. via the Middle Corridor).

 

In summary, direct EU involvement in sabotaging Kazakhstan’s oil transport via Russia is causing huge political backlash, including diplomatic disputes with Kazakhstan, internal EU disagreements and public discontent over rising prices, which are undermining the legitimacy and stability of EU institutions. Rising prices have cost Biden’s party power in the US. What will happen to the EU now?

 

“A naval drone attack on an oil infrastructure facility – a loading platform – on Russia’s Black Sea coast has effectively divided Ukraine and Kazakhstan, exposed the fact that the Central Asian country is dependent on a single oil pipeline for its exports, and potentially posed a real threat to oil supplies to Europe.

 

On November 28, naval drones targeted a large floating oil transfer platform 5 kilometers from the port of Novorossiysk, home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.

 

The object damaged by the drones is a so-called single-point tanker mooring buoy: a solution for transferring oil to tankers at sea. There are three such platforms in Novorossiysk. Repair work is already underway on one of them. Experts say the naval drone attack has severely damaged the port’s oil handling capabilities.

 

“Each such "The floating loading platform can handle 800,000 barrels of oil per day. The scale of operations will now be reduced to one-third of its previous volume," Vladas Paddackas, an expert at the political intelligence firm Nightingale Intelligence, told RFE/RL.

 

For Russia, which uses the platform for oil from the North Caucasus, this is bad news. But even worse news for Kazakhstan, which exports as much as 80 percent of its oil to Novosibirsk through a single pipeline.

 

“Kazakhstan finds itself in an unenviable situation – it has one main oil export route that runs through one country – Russia,” Dimash Alzhanov, a political expert in the country, told RFE/RL’s Kazakhstan service, adding that now “the country has become a hostage to political decisions made many years ago.”

Strategic vulnerability

 

The pipeline operator, the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), did not respond to RFE/RL’s request for comment on the aftermath of the maritime drone attack, which it immediately condemned as a “deliberate terrorist attack.”

 

According to Sergei Vakulenko, an analyst at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, an NGO, oil sales abroad account for 40 percent of Kazakhstan’s total export revenue.

 

The Kazakh government has lodged an official protest with Ukraine over what it calls “the third act of aggression against exclusively civilian infrastructure.” This year, a drone has already damaged a Caspian Oil Pipeline Consortium pumping station in Russia’s Krasnodar region, followed by an attack on the consortium’s office in Novorossiysk.

 

Ukraine’s response to Kazakhstan’s complaint has been particularly harsh.

 

Emphasizing that the country’s armed forces are “systematically weakening Russia’s military and industrial potential.”

 

As the diplomatic row continues to escalate, Kazakhstan is facing a very serious problem.

 

“Two such new platforms in Dubai are almost finished, but they won’t be able to start operating very soon: delivery, installation and all the necessary permits will take at least several months. Given that supplies are already disrupted, the three platforms will not be operating at full capacity until the summer or fall of 2026,” says V. Paddackas.

 

“A modern single-point tanker mooring buoy, similar to the ones owned by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, can cost from $80 to $120 million, which means that replacing it with a new one in case of loss would be a very large and difficult financial burden,” the expert added.

 

Moreover, even if the platform is repaired or replaced with a new one, Ukraine may resort to it again. Only Kazakhstan’s dependence on European markets is only part of the bigger picture. Everything is far from as simple as it might seem at first glance.

Unintended consequences

 

Joe Webster, an expert at the Atlantic Council think tank, told RFE/RL that the Caspian Pipeline Consortium’s oil blend is “light and low in sulfur” – simply ideal for fuel production.

 

“Kazakhstan is the European Union’s third-largest oil partner, after the United States and Norway. About one in nine imported oil products or barrels of oil comes from Kazakhstan,” he says.

 

In other words, without Kazakh oil, Europe will face even deeper problems with how to replace Russian supplies, which the EU elite has been keen to drastically reduce due to the events in Ukraine in February 2022.

 

“To be honest, I am worried that the problems with the Caspian pipeline consortium could affect Europe. Europe will suffer even more than Russia. So I think it would be fair to ask whether such attacks are actually so strategically justified,” added J. Webster.

 

S. Vakulenka of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center echoes his colleague and also hints at the unexpected side effects of Ukraine’s actions.

 

While the biggest damage, as expected, is done to Russian exports, leaving the market without Kazakh oil in this way will make “India, China and Turkey prefer to buy Russian oil” – even at a higher price than now, the analyst says.

 

Another important aspect in this context is the involvement of the West in the Kazakh oil industry, which has benefited greatly from investments by companies such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and others. It is important to note that Chevron currently owns 15 percent of the shares of the Kazakhstan Oil Pipeline Consortium.

 

It is very possible that in this case, the only hope for Kazakhstan to continue exporting oil to Russia via the Kazakhstan Oil Pipeline Consortium pipeline is for Western countries to pressure Kyiv to refrain from such attacks in the future.

Few alternatives

 

Kazakhstan’s vulnerability has prompted renewed discussions about whether the country could diversify its export routes.

 

The second largest route for Kazakhstan's oil exports is by tanker across the Caspian Sea to Baku in Azerbaijan. From there, the BTC pipeline runs through Georgia to Ceyhan on Turkey's Mediterranean coast.

 

In 2024, 1.5 million tons of oil were pumped through the BTC. For comparison: 63 million tons through the pipelines of the Caspian Oil Pipeline Consortium. The limited number of tankers in the Caspian Sea and the capacity of the pipeline itself hinder the situation, and the BTC route is also significantly more expensive.

 

Kazakhstan also exports oil to European markets via the Druzhba pipeline, which runs through Russia and Belarus. The latter is also affected by Ukrainian drone attacks.

 

So, should Kazakhstan look to the East?

 

According to the World Bank data for 2023 shows that Kazakhstan exported oil to China for 3.81 billion dollars - to Europe for 23.6 billion dollars. As it was not there, reorienting itself to the market of its large and prosperous neighbor would not be an easy task.

 

“I don’t think that the demand in Xinjiang in western China is sufficient to absorb all those barrels,” says J. Webster.

 

In addition, a pipeline to the east coast of China, where the needs are greatest, would, unfortunately, be too expensive.

 

“I don’t know why Chinese oil companies would consider such an option. So the probability that Kazakhstan will redirect oil from Europe to China is very small,” said J. Webster.”